Re: The wider implications of debhelper/dbus breakage
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:57:25PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>> [Michael Biebl]
>>> Would it make sense to avoid the upload of "obviously" broken
>>> packages from buildds in the future. E.g. if lintian detects an
>>> error it would need some special inspection from the buildd uploader.
>> Don't all buildd binary packages already need "special inspection" from
>> a buildd uploader?
> I get somewhere between 30 and 100 mails success mails from my two
> buildds (voltaire and malo) on an average day. I do have a few mutt
> rules that highlight mails with obvious issues (so I can more closely
> inspect them before signing), but I seriously do *not* read all of them
> from start to end. I wouldn't be able to get any work done in that case.
Wouter's comment aside, checks at buildd level would be too late. It should
be the new queue that may perform a few checks, such that obviously broken packages
are not even forwarded to the builders.
The idea with lintian I seems just fine to me - it just needs to happen earlier.